Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
radar.oreilly.com
Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#2Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#3I volunteered a bit early this year for Common Crawl (not much, just some Java and Clojure examples for fetching and using the new archive format).
Common Crawl already has many volunteers (and a professional management and technical staff) so it would seem like a good idea to merge some of the author's goals with the existing Common Crawl organization. Perhaps more frequent Common Crawl web fetches and also making the data available on Azure, Google Cloud, etc. would satisfy the author's desire to have more immediacy and have the data available from multiple sources.
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#4Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#5It would be so nice to go to xyz.com and actually find what I am looking for in under 1 second.
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#6Yeah, this sounds all well and good in theory, but after visiting thousands of sites over the years, it might be a better idea to help engineers build a search engine for their own site/data first. I can't recall many websites that have amazing search. It's a problem when I have to use google to find what I want on xyz.com because if I go search for what I am looking for on xyz.com I cannot find it even if I know its…
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#7Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#8Yeah, this sounds all well and good in theory, but after visiting thousands of sites over the years, it might be a better idea to help engineers build a search engine for their own site/data first. I can't recall many websites that have amazing search. It's a problem when I have to use google to find what I want on xyz.com because if I go search for what I am looking for on xyz.com I cannot find it even if I know its…
I think we need to optimize local search engines and aggregate (in some ways) all this into a global search engine.
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#9Yeah, this sounds all well and good in theory, but after visiting thousands of sites over the years, it might be a better idea to help engineers build a search engine for their own site/data first. I can't recall many websites that have amazing search. It's a problem when I have to use google to find what I want on xyz.com because if I go search for what I am looking for on xyz.com I cannot find it even if I know its…
I'm pretty sure Elastic is on the right direction in this regard, don't you think?
In my opinion which means nothing, sites need to figure out how to power their own search. Using a third party isn't going to work for most. Maybe people need to focus on building custom architecture that indexes the data in a more structured way rather than cobbling systems together that ultimately hinder search efforts when its time to get the user what they want. I don't know the answer but somebody eventually will. Maybe wordpress will create a powerful search for all those wordpress sites.
Re: Wouldn't it be fun to build your own Google?
#10Great article -- we're excited there's so much interest in the web as a dataset! I'm part of the team at Common Crawl and thought I'd clarify some points in the article.
The most important is that you can download all the data that Common Crawl provides completely for free, without the need to pay S3 transfer fees or process it only in an EC2 cluster. You don't even need to have an Amazon account! Our crawl archive blog posts give full details for downloading[1]. The main challenge then is storing it, as the full dataset is really quite large, but a number of universities have pulled down a significant portion onto their local clusters.
Also, we're performing the crawl once a month now. The monthly crawl archives are between 35-70 terabytes compressed. As such, we've actually crawled and stored over a quarter petabyte compressed, or 1.3 petabytes uncompressed, so far in 2014. (The archives go back to 2008.)
Comparing directly against the Internet Archive datasets is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. They store images and other types of binary content as well, whilst Common Crawl aims primarily for HTML, which compresses better. Also, the numbers used for Internet Archive were for all of the crawls they've done, and in our case the numbers were for a single month's crawl.
We're excited to see Martin use one of our crawl archives in his work -- seeing these experiments come to life the best part of working at Common Crawl! I can confirm that optimizations will help you lower that EC2 figure. We can process a fairly intensive MR job over a standard crawl archive in afternoon for about $30. Big data on a small budget is a top priority for us!
[1]: http://blog.commoncrawl.org/2014/11/october-2014-crawl-archi...